Interesting here that citing your points with scientific research and arguing logically is considered troll baiting, yet calling someone a misoginist and other labels such as 'troll baiting'' as your only form of a response [so basically ad homs] is not considered as such.

Seems like the education system really has gone to the gutter. Fucking hell I hate post modernist discourse which is all about feewings and nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Only about what you feel should be right and what you feel should be wrong.

Lol,the quote is unattributed (I assume it's from a published paper ), the second link is a review written by students for an assignment and mentions nothing about logic and gender. Which poster on the Yale thing is relevant? cba to read the whole thing.

Lol,the quote is unattributed (I assume it's from a published paper ), the second link is a review written by students for an assignment and mentions nothing about logic and gender. Which poster on the Yale thing is relevant? cba to read the whole thing.

Yes that quote in unattributed but the facts it mentions are in the two articles I linked.

at the women in here taking time to respond to the trollbait. Just no.

I know Kat that these look like trolls, but this discourse is seen more and more everywhere, that's why I'm taking the time to challenge it. I dare you to find any kind of "hate speech" in my speech. I did not "put people down for having opinions", I am the one who is being put down and told that my words mean nothing because I'm a woman and it's "scientifically proven" that I can't think properly.

Some of you may be trolling, some may not. But I'm just trying to talk in a civil manner and I just feel like a punching ball right now.
Anyway, I hope it will be visible to most who is being rational and trying to argue, and who is just acting like a bully.

GOAT = Fed, I won't even address half of your points, because a lot of them are really misogynist bullshit and it should be obvious enough.
But here are the few I want to address :

- You say : "That's funny because men are far more victims of violent crimes than women. Men are 76% of homicide victims as well the majority victims of violent assaults and muggings.
[...] So tell me cupcake, why should your safety be prioritised over men's? Don't you want equality after all? It's quite clear men are the victims of violent crime far more than women."

First, sexual assault is a special type of violent crime and that was what I was talking about, not just criminality. And the reasons why men are victims of violence also come from gender education, because they are brought up to express themselves through violence with other men, so that's one point where feminism can be good for you, but anyway you will make fun of me for saying this, whatever.
Second, I never said my security should be "prioritised" over men's. It is perfectly true to say that men are more often the victims of violent attacks. But the big difference is that they are not brought up to live in fear of attacks, and even less to feel that THEY are responsible for avoiding these attacks. Women are constantly reminded of the danger of r*pe and how THEY should make sure they avoid it.
There is a special kind of gendered violence in r*ape, and the way victims are considered, which does not apply to "regular" criminality liked being robbed.

Then you said : "Also wanting safety over freedom is an inherent feminine trait, seeing as how most Western countries are eroding liberty in the name of safety is another example of a femininsed society and thus it is not surprising these concepts have always been perpetrated by men and feminists quite clearly want several freedoms eroded for their safety.
''Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.'' "

Well thank you, you are actually going in my direction. I am always trying to assert my right to liberty over safety (I must not be a real woman... well I'm a feminist, that explains it, right?). Every time someone tells me I'm crazy because I go running on my own, and that I could be attacked, I resist that argument. I think it would be far worse to relinquish my freedom to go running on my own, than to take the risk of being attacked.
But the thing is, if I ever actually get r*ped or killed while I'm running, I'll be blamed by many for being reckless and irresponsible, because apparently, in the minds of many people, you don't go running on your own when you're a woman. (Don't say that's not true, you only have to read the comments on articles about women who were attacked while they were on a run).

Then you said : "Yet if no one gave you any interest you'd also be complaining that society considers you ugly and doesn't give you the attention you deserve."
OH the old argument, "you should be grateful for the attention you get even when you don't want it." Why? Because being reassured about my physicaly attractiveness should be my main goal in life?
You know, I'm just like everyone else, I'm interested in getting attention mostly from the people that I do find attractive. Yet, in my life it rarely happened, sadly, and that did not make me complain that they had not given me what I "deserved". I just tought I was too ugly, or simply unlucky.

Worst part still: "In fact one needs to ask why would you be in a bar to have a ''quiet conversation''? Who the heck goes to bars to have 'quiet conversation'?! I'm sure there are many other venues out there to accommodate that. NID you there to soak up the attention men give you yet don't want any of them making a move on you [unless it's the tattooed thug or drug dealer]."

I think the only misogynist stereotype that was missing from your message was the "women like jerks and not nice guys" stereotype. It comes out of the blue, turns out to be completely false about me (I was never attracted to bad boys and never dated any), but that's not even the point... Add to this the "you actually attracted them on purpose", so I'm also more or less a slut, thank you very much. You are just throwing back at me all your frustration against women in general, it seems (yet I thought men were not guided by their emotions?...)
FYI, no, there was no other venue where I could talk to my friend. She needed to talk about problems with her boyfriend, could not invite me at their home to do that, and I did not live there. And this city happened to have no quiet place at all where you could talk, except expensive restaurants which we could not afford.
But then again, lots of people go to bars to have conversations, it is perfectly our right, and when I tell a guy that I'd like to be left alone, he should respect this. Nothing more to be said about this.

Finally... You are basically calling me a liar by claiming that I'm not honest when I say I fight against stereotypes about BOTH sexes. What do you know?
I am not part of any feminist organization. I am simply a woman who has been raised by parents who were egalitarian, probably feminists, actually (especially my dad), even though they would not necessarily use the word. After years of being part of the women who say "I am not a feminist but..." (and then proceed to list all the elements they believe in, and that actually DEFINE feminism), I started talking to a few feminist friends, and I realised that actually, I had no idea what "feminism" meant, and that my belief system was actually totally what feminism was about.
So now, I do use the label "feminist", no matter the stigma that's attached to it.

Thus, I define myself as a feminist, because I think people should be free to be whoever they are without being constantly put down or silenced because they do not correspond to gender stereotypes. I regularly share feminist articles with my friends, and believe it or not, recently I have shared articles about men, too.

I've already said what I thought about the myth that "science is truth". People who believe that are sadly the ones who lack logic, and, especially, perspective. They may never have taken a philosophy class, I don't know. But science is NOT truth, most of the time, science is just as ideological as the rest, but it's more dangerous, because it's PRETENDING to be the ultimate truth.
Ask black people what they think nowadays of the so-called science which said they were more stupid than us because their skull was smaller or whatever BS they had made up at the time to legitimate White domination.
So you can throw two scientific articles with their references, what does that mean? You know most people cannot understand them anyway. Maybe there are ten other articles which contradict them. Maybe in a few years, it will turn out that they are wrong, just like scientific racism was wrong. What I know is, I won't ever let you someone tell me that my words are less valid than his because I'm a woman.

I don't know if you are a scientist, but it seems to me that you know very little about social sciences. Apparently, you despise them, you think they do not involve "logic" (you asked me if I was doing STEM... No I'm not, but I still kicked ass at math and science when I was studying, and if you think languages and social sciences don't involve logic... you are even more narrow-minded than you seem).

Apparently your logic does not help you understand the difference between fighting patriarchy and hating men, and you don't understand what I'm saying when I talk about differentiating between a system and individuals. It's not that complicated, really.
You can be in a society that privileges men in certain areas, without it being in all areas. Very often, for one advantage that you have, you have a corresponding disadvantage. For instance, men are not expected to spend as much time doing the chores, they get paid better for their jobs, promoted more easily... But if they want to spend time with their kids, or if they happen not to make much money, their quality as "real men" will be questioned. You can also be part of a privileged majority, and yet not be in a privileged position yourself. For instance, you can be a poor, unemployed white man. You do not see yourself as privileged, because globally, you are not. But you are not going to suffer from the same discrimination as a black or arabic man when looking for a job.

One last point : since you are so "logical"... If according to all of you feminist-haters, I am actually lying about my values, and I am actually just a man-hater... what am I doing here on MTF?
Hanging out on a forum that's full of guys, about watching men's tennis? Because I hate men so much I need to go after them on every forum I can find?
Why are most of my idols men? Or maybe I'm mistaken, maybe David Ferrer, Yevgeny Kafelnikov or Guillermo Coria are not men?
How come I've always liked hanging out with guys, and practising activities like playing videogames? Maybe my friends are not real men? Or maybe I'm not a real woman, after all?

Lol,the quote is unattributed (I assume it's from a published paper ), the second link is a review written by students for an assignment and mentions nothing about logic and gender. Which poster on the Yale thing is relevant? cba to read the whole thing.

Being in academia, I am well placed to know that it's not because something is published that it has any universal "truth" in it... And that the system of peer reviewing is heavily influenced by ideology. I don't think there's any real difference between social sciences and STEMs in that regard.

There is no global "truth" coming out of data, figures, and studies... The obtention of data can be biased, the interpretation of data can be biased... I'm not saying data and studies have no value at all, but to see them as demonstrating some kind of ultimate, objective truth is just beyond naive.

And to see cultural studies as a pile of illogical and biased bullshit, while "real" science would give us some kind of immaculate, unbiased truth... well this is just really short-sighted.

Being in academia, I am well placed to know that it's not because something is published that it has any universal "truth" in it... And that the system of peer reviewing is heavily influenced by ideology. I don't think there's any real difference between social sciences and STEMs in that regard.

There is no global "truth" coming out of data, figures, and studies... The obtention of data can be biased, the interpretation of data can be biased... I'm not saying data and studies have no value at all, but to see them as demonstrating some kind of ultimate, objective truth is just beyond naive.

And to see cultural studies as a pile of illogical and biased bullshit, while "real" science would give us some kind of immaculate, unbiased truth... well this is just really short-sighted.

I totally agree that papers aren't the be all and end all, especially when it's something as controversial and complex as brain/gender differences.
But I do think that when posting something as fact there should be at least some proper research/evidence to back up the claims
In this case I find saying something is scientific fact then posting as evidence two irrelevant links and a quote found somewhere on the internet to be deceitful.

GOAT = Fed, I won't even address half of your points, because a lot of them are really misogynist bullshit and it should be obvious enough.

So backing up your points is misoginistic bullshit?

Okay.jph

But here are the few I want to address :

Quote:

First, sexual assault is a special type of violent crime and that was what I was talking about, not just criminality.

Yes but women are primarily affected by just one sort of violent crime more than men, whereas men are primarily affected primarily by the vast majority of violent crime. Therefore overall men are affected by violent crime far more than women. It can't even be compared. Also please aware me on why sexual assault is a 'special' type of criminality? It certainly cannot in any level be put above the main crime from which we derive all morals in the West: murder. I can also think of many crimes one can commit which leave scarring on victims than sexual assault. This is another thing I hate about feminists. They want to put **** on such a level that it's deemed to be the worst crime on can commit.

Quote:

And the reasons why men are victims of violence also come from gender education, because they are brought up to express themselves through violence with other men,

Not really. How?

So basically you're implying men are violent thugs? Because the majority aren't. I don't see how one can say men are brought up to express themselves though violence with other men.

See this is the problem with your post-modern discourse: It does not discuss in absolutes, it's all down to opinions. What something looks like violence to someone will not be violence to an other person. It's far too subjective for me to take seriously.

Quote:

so that's one point where feminism can be good for you, but anyway you will make fun of me for saying this, whatever.

It's futile to discuss with you like any feminists. See this is your logic:

> Women are oppressed and men are priveleged due to patriarchy
> I bring up many areas of life in which this is clearly not true
> Then you say that is also due to the patriarchy

This is extremely logically fallacious and is called circular reasoning.

Quote:

But the big difference is that they are not brought up to live in fear of attacks

Of course they are. I've been told many times to not be alone at night, to keep my belongings safe, this is basic advice given to all. And of course you're not supposed to live in fear of these attacks and lock yourself in. But you should take pre cautions to minimise the risk of being attacked. This sort of advice is regularly told to everyone.

Quote:

and even less to feel that THEY are responsible for avoiding these attacks.

Absolutely not.

If you go with money flying out of your pockets and wearing gold jewellery through the slums of Detroit at 12am and get robbed no one is gonna feel much sorrow for you.

If you leave your house door open and go out, even if accidentally, your insurer will refuse to pay you out.

You cannot expect to take no pre cautions and have no one criticise you for it. Of course it happens.

Quote:

Women are constantly reminded of the danger of r*pe and how THEY should make sure they avoid it.

And rightly so, **** is no different to other crimes and everyone should be told on how to minimise your risk. It's better to tell people that the world is all rainbows and ponies and no crime happens.

Quote:

There is a special kind of gendered violence in r*ape, and the way victims are considered, which does not apply to "regular" criminality liked being robbed.

Please expand further. What about male **** in American jails?

Quote:

Well thank you, you are actually going in my direction. I am always trying to assert my right to liberty over safety (I must not be a real woman... well I'm a feminist, that explains it, right?)

As a side note; yes I don't consider feminists feminine and hence, in my eyes, they're not 'real' women [whatever that may mean].

Quote:

Every time someone tells me I'm crazy because I go running on my own, and that I could be attacked, I resist that argument.

Well that's because they care for you. Statistically, you're less likely to be the victim of any violent crime than men, but everyone gets told not to go running alone in dangerous areas because evil exists out there.

What do you propose to do which allows everyone to go out there without fear of being attacked?

You could introduce draconian laws like in the Middle East where there are severe punishments for criminals impeaching human rights and people live in quite a lot of suffering for very, very low crime rates. They have no freedoms but they have their safety. Do you wish to go down that route?

Quote:

I think it would be far worse to relinquish my freedom to go running on my own, than to take the risk of being attacked.

Yes so what's your point then?

Quote:

But the thing is, if I ever actually get r*ped or killed while I'm running, I'll be blamed by many for being reckless and irresponsible, because apparently, in the minds of many people, you don't go running on your own when you're a woman. (Don't say that's not true, you only have to read the comments on articles about women who were attacked while they were on a run).

Not really. I honestly can't remember a time some girl got ***** ir killed and they said: ''oh we won't prosecute the criminal because she shouldn't have been out on her own'', neither do people tend to bring that up. So please stop this.

Quote:

OH the old argument, "you should be grateful for the attention you get even when you don't want it." Why? Because being reassured about my physicaly attractiveness should be my main goal in life?

Where did I say that? I've seen a picture by a feminist which said:

''I need feminism because no guy gives me attention''. I couldn't find it but dammit that was the perfect place to put it in.

Quote:

You know, I'm just like everyone else, I'm interested in getting attention mostly from the people that I do find attractive. Yet, in my life it rarely happened, sadly, and that did not make me complain that they had not given me what I "deserved". I just tought I was too ugly, or simply unlucky.

I'd say it's because you're a feminist. No masculine man will or ever will like a feminist, no matter how she looks.

Worst part still: "In fact one needs to ask why would you be in a bar to have a ''quiet conversation''? Who the heck goes to bars to have 'quiet conversation'?! I'm sure there are many other venues out there to accommodate that. NID you there to soak up the attention men give you yet don't want any of them making a move on you [unless it's the tattooed thug or drug dealer]."

Quote:

I think the only misogynist stereotype that was missing from your message was the "women like jerks and not nice guys" stereotype. It comes out of the blue, turns out to be completely false about me (I was never attracted to bad boys and never dated any), but that's not even the point... Add to this the "you actually attracted them on purpose", so I'm also more or less a slut, thank you very much.

But what's wrong with being a slut?

100% srs, this may come as s surprise to you, but nothing wrong with being a slut, they're there for the pleasure of men, obviously I wouldn't ever date one seriously, but sluts are good for a nice time. In fact this is the biggest irony:

Women shame sluts far more than men.

The only men who shame sluts are the jealous ones pretty much and they're in the minority. I wasn't saying you were a slut either. And yes someone who goes to a bar which is quite clearly an environment made for primarily meeting new people, particularly the opposite sex, and then gets annoyed for men hitting on her is either just clueless or just there for the attention. This isn't being a slut, this is being an attention whore.

It's like you dancing at a club and a guy starts dancing with you and you get annoyed.

Quote:

But then again, lots of people go to bars to have conversations, it is perfectly our right, and when I tell a guy that I'd like to be left alone, he should respect this. Nothing more to be said about this.

So this one instance = general of how men behave? Seems legit.

Quote:

Finally... You are basically calling me a liar by claiming that I'm not honest when I say I fight against stereotypes about BOTH sexes. What do you know?
I am not part of any feminist organization. I am simply a woman who has been raised by parents who were egalitarian, probably feminists, actually (especially my dad), even though they would not necessarily use the word. After years of being part of the women who say "I am not a feminist but..." (and then proceed to list all the elements they believe in, and that actually DEFINE feminism), I started talking to a few feminist friends, and I realised that actually, I had no idea what "feminism" meant, and that my belief system was actually totally what feminism was about.
So now, I do use the label "feminist", no matter the stigma that's attached to it.

Yet not one piece of activism was seen by a feminist about male stereotypes that day.

Quote:

Thus, I define myself as a feminist, because I think people should be free to be whoever they are without being constantly put down or silenced because they do not correspond to gender stereotypes.

Agreed. I absolutely do not agree with feminists but I still want their freedom of speech in tact so I can destroy them in arguments.

I strongly believe in freedom of speech but most feminists are against freedom of speech which naturally puts me at odds with them.

Quote:

I've already said what I thought about the myth that "science is truth". People who believe that are sadly the ones who lack logic, and, especially, perspective.

Science is the truth. It is not subjective, it is absolute truths.

Quote:

They may never have taken a philosophy class, I don't know. But science is NOT truth, most of the time, science is just as ideological as the rest, but it's more dangerous, because it's PRETENDING to be the ultimate truth.

Dafuq did I just read here?

Science PRETENDS to the be the ultimate truth?

So Evolution isn't true?

Einstein's theory of relativity isn't true?

Quote:

Ask black people what they think nowadays of the so-called science which said they were more stupid than us because their skull was smaller or whatever BS they had made up at the time to legitimate White domination.
So you can throw two scientific articles with their references, what does that mean? You know most people cannot understand them anyway. Maybe there are ten other articles which contradict them. Maybe in a few years, it will turn out that they are wrong, just like scientific racism was wrong.

There was a term for that: Pseudo science. People claiming them ironically didn't have any scientific basis for their arguments.

I honestly don't know what I can say to anyone who doesn't think science is the ultimate truth. Sad times indeed, the world has advanced so much due to science yet people remain sceptical, probably because it contradicts their world view that everyone is equal.

Quote:

What I know is, I won't ever let you someone tell me that my words are less valid than his because I'm a woman.

Nope, I'm a student of mathematics: The ultimate science, the subject from which all science is derived.

Quote:

but it seems to me that you know very little about social sciences

And neither does social science interest me. In fact it is a disgrace that the word 'science' is attached to such a travesty. Social science has no emperical backing to it, anyone can make a theory and it doesn't require a proof.

Quote:

and if you think languages and social sciences don't involve logic... you are even more narrow-minded than you seem).

Languages are good and a few social sciences like history and economics are very useful.

Everything else is BS.

Quote:

You can be in a society that privileges men in certain areas, without it being in all areas.

And the same applied to women so why bring up the patriarchy excuse then?

In fact legally, women are advantaged so much than men in many areas it's a disgrace.

Quote:

Very often, for one advantage that you have, you have a corresponding disadvantage.

And the same for women.

Quote:

For instance, men are not expected to spend as much time doing the chores, they get paid better for their jobs, promoted more easily

The pay gap myth has been debunked many times, I can provide you with a plethora of evidence if you wish.

Quote:

... But if they want to spend time with their kids, or if they happen not to make much money, their quality as "real men" will be questioned.

And of course this is encouraged in women.

So don't you get the point which nature is telling? Men and women aren't equal. Men and women can never be equal. Both have such different physical and mental structures, they can never be equal.

Now here's where my gripe with feminism comes in: They want to erode all the bad things which women are looked down upon, both socially and legally, they've pretty much accomplished the legally part and for the most the socially part as well, yet men's are still diadvantaged in many areas legally and socially [ie they're expected to man up everytime, this does not happen for women anymore, it did 50 years ago.]

Women are having their cake and eating it too.

I didn't claim you hated men.

Quote:

How come I've always liked hanging out with guys, and practising activities like playing videogames? Maybe my friends are not real men? Or maybe I'm not a real woman, after all?

Like I said, feminists usually aren't FEMININE.

Yeah sure go ahead don't be feminine no one cares but don't complain when real men don't give you interest either, and yes you will be naturally attracted to masculine men, not feminised men.

And just as an aside; why do women usually go for 'jerks'? Because they're hyper masculine. The amount of proper masculine men is quickly dwindling in society and all you have are the extremely hyper masculine men left [ie the thugs and jerks as you call them] and your average doormat pro feminist man who berates his own gender for the supposed ''oppression'' of women and this is why women are attracted to them. Of course they're not a good representation of masculinity because they're too masculine, but this is the reason why they prefer them to you average feminist, pro equality man in Western society.

God dammit I fear for the current generation of men who have back bones to them and seem to worship women.

I'm not saying that I think women have more rights, but outside third world countries, I just refuse to accept that women are anywhere near as far behind men as extremist femminists make it out to be. I really think it is about the same, nature has found a great way of levelling it out for both sexes.

This was my opening statement, not that I thought men have more rights than women.

Sophita you make some good points, I take exception to a few however;

Things like boxing and martial arts teach discipline and respect. Back in the days where men were more gentlemanly they did boxing in schools which they don't so much anymore. They do not at all make men hit women.

Secondly, educating about r*pe prevention really is more about practicality. For example, I should be allowed to walk the streets any hour I wish, any street I wish, wearing all my nice clothes and jewellery, and not worry about getting assaulted and robbed. But the reality is, people would teach me not to walk the streets alone at night for that reason. **** is the same. By the same token Men are taught not to walk the streets alone at night for fear of getting mugged too. It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against women.

It is a huge shame that "Man has one night stand, SCORE!, women has one night stand, WHORE. But you know what, more women throw around the word slut then men do. Men don't mind sluts, because they benefit their needs. It is women who are bitchy and judge slutty behaviour far more than men. You will hear the word slut used by women A LOT.

Similarly, I hate it when guys call women bitches, hoes etc in casual conversation. Hate it. Never do it myself and often pick my friends up on it when I see them do it. But you know what, most women must fucking love it, because those are the guys that get laid. Guess what, the nice gentlemanly guys who hold car doors open, are respectful, treat their women like angels, those guys don't get laid. Nice guys don't finish last, they dont even qualify for the race. Those guys would be idiots to not call women bitches, they seem to love it. So this one really is womens fault, they should tell their sisterhood to make better choices around the men they chose and stop rejecting the nice guys.

Same thing with domestic violence. Women go back time and time again to guys that hit them. Voluntarily sometimes, not just because they are trapped. Even after they have left and are totally safe. How about women make better choices in men and they might not be in that situation, and put children in that circumstance? And stop blaming mankind for their lousy choice in men.

I bought up the draft and wars to show generally over a long time all the hundreds of millions of men who have died in wars. When the shit hits the fan and women are in trouble, who has to go and die and save the day? MEN. Whether we hamstrung ourselves or not, it's still a sacrifice. YOU say that men chose to not let women fight wars, BUT women chose their bastard partners who beat them up, yet you expect sympathy in the same circumstance?

It really is extremist feminist ideals I am against. The ones that cannot see the wind through the trees.

You want the ultimate example? Look at the titanic. Who was it that went first, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Less rights my fucking ass. If men were so horrible how did they let that happen?

Same thing with the women staying at home. People forget before technology, most jobs were just manual labour jobs, men were more suited to.

I bet you anything you like (this is my opinion), that women 40 years ago were far happier than young women now. Having dated so many young girls recently (last 5-10 years, they are so screwed up it really isn't even funny.

It is refreshing though when I hear a women say she knows how to treat her man. We only ever hear about how men should treat women.

Same with kids. So many men wanted nothing more than to have kids and were unable to. At least women have other options, if a guys relationships don't go right, he can't have kids. Yet we only ever hear about women who cant have them.

"I did not play my best tennis, no? And..that is what enable him to win..to win this match no? "

GOAT Fed really made some great points and destroyed a lot of myths around EXTREME feninism.

Here are some more;

Father of bride paying for daughters wedding tradition still followed by some. As a son I will never be compensated for any of that.
But hey we will just get rid of all sexist traditions, just so long as they don't favour women. Granted a guy does benefit in this scenario too, the stranger she is marrying, but brothers of the girl don't typically get compensated for it.

Men are called bitches for drinking wine, but women can drink beer, whiskey etc and it's hot. Women can wear guys clothes, be tomboys, no problem. Guys do it and we get beat up and called a sissy. Countless other examples.

Lesbians also have it far easier than gays. Most guys think theyre hot. Women dont go around in groups beating up lesbian women.

Men are ***** a hell of a lot. In prison (where it is turned a blind eye to and absolutely NO JUSTICE is ever had)
And as little boys ***** by paedophiles. **** happens to men A LOT.

Mens body image issues aren't taken even remotely seriously. Many men drop stone dead in their 20-s 30-s and 40-s from taking steroids from working out to make their bodies look better. Like fuck men don't have body image issues.

In many developed countries more men commit suicide than women. More women make unsuccessful attempts. Maybe they are more half hearted, maybe the don't have the stomach for more iron clad methods. Regardless, this is not consistent with women having a harder life.

Women must have been considered valuable on the titanic when they were spared whilst their husbands in their thousands drowned to death and knew for 2 hours they were dead meat.

And the biggest crying shame of all;

Men are guilty until proven innocent where child sex abuse (and child abuse generally) is concerned. Men cannot work at all in early childhood or daycar facilities. Nor can they babysit outside of a family environment. Many men cannot be close to their daughters for fear of being accused of something. And in the court of public opinion, you'r guilty. Its a crying, crying shame.

Women can easily poison their kids mind against their dads because of having primary or sole custody of them. Fathers rights issues are HUGE and the result of many suicides, and are not taken seriously at all by many feminists. Why should we change society for them when they aren't interested in changing it for the greater good of men?

When the fathers rights topic is brought up on talk back radio men phone in, in their dozens in, reduced to tears on national radio because they can't see their kids.

So what if women don't get paid quite so much as men, at least they have jobs. And if all else fails, they can always trap a guy, have a kid and rake in child welfare benifits and child support payments, and leech their way through life that way. Or sell their body as a prostitute. Or even make money babysitting on the side. It takes attention away from a much, much more important issue affecting the world right now, today. All womens jobs lost in the recession have been returned. Men are still well over 2 million jobs short just in the United States alone, as many labour type jobs were outsourced overseas for good.

Bring this up and I guarantee all the feminists go quiet. All you hear is crickets. Done it many times recently.

Women can abort a kid if the guy wants it and he has no say. But if she has it, he must pay child support for 18 years.

I could just go on and on and on and on with this.

Male.Dominated.World.My.Ass.

Look at the tennis example, they hog the limelight with the equal prize money debate whilst a more important issue gets totally thrown under the radar, the monumental pay gap between the top 100 players earnings, and the top 200-300 players barely even making a living out of the sport once their costs are covered. Typical extremist feminist behaviour, making everything about them. And yet again, they are demonstrably wrong, and your average chick who talks about it knows absolutely NOTHING about the sport. Because their format is easier, and lack of competition, the women can play doubles and singles at the same event, and actually rake in MORE than their male counterparts. Unbelievable hypocrisy on display yet again for all to see. And yet more brainwashing material for your average young woman who knows little about sport reading about womens suffrage struggles in tennis. No wonder so many are taken in by it. Some of them actually believe the Williams sisters could beat a top 100 male player. But thats life nowadays, everyone has an opinion.

"I did not play my best tennis, no? And..that is what enable him to win..to win this match no? "

And who could forget, it is so, so, so very much easier for your average women to get laid/get a boyfriend than the reverse. In fact..if they are more than very average looking they can just sit at a bar and wait and make their choice.

Likewise, sex is a lot harder for guys. So many more things can go wrong. So much of the performance is guy based. It's always about "how good a guy is in bed" never "how good she is at sex"..it's all about the guy, again!

Equally, sex feels a lot better for women. I mean guys aren't exactly screaming. Damn..we get the short end of every stick. Though it is harder for women to orgasm, but conversely, is a lot better when it does happen.

Male contraceptive also halves the pleasure of the actual intercourse. Same cannot be said for women's. Though it does mess with their body more.

I guess what really ticks me off about the whole thing is that at least women have a brand to air their greivances about life and it's hardships. What can men do? When we do challenge feminism we are shut down, our issues like fathers rights and abortion rights are given absolutely no airtime at all.

Women would do well to stop and imagine for just one second if the shoe was on the other foot.

"I did not play my best tennis, no? And..that is what enable him to win..to win this match no? "

2003, you make lots of good points, and others I really don't agree with... But the thing is, you are still talking in a frame that sets women on the one side, and men on the other, and giving specific examples we are supposed to add up to decide who in the end is the biggest victim.

What I've been trying to explain, until GOAT = Fed came in, is that precisely, this is NOT feminist thinking.
Feminists are not trying to reference every single social injustice on both sides and claim that there are more that affect women and therefore men are evil privileged pigs, and women are poor innocent victims.
Most of the behaviours and injustices you describe are real and fighting against them is NOT incompatible with feminism (on the contrary).

Also, when people say "extreme feminism", this really means nothing. Feminism is a huge number of movements, with different ideas about what we should do. I agree with some, disagree with others. But the basic principle of feminism is, and has always been, to fight for equality of treatment for men and women, and against the patriarchy which imposes certain narrow-minded visions of what men and women should be like.

The fact that certain women act according to the rules of patriarchy and get benefits from it is NOT an argument to dismiss feminism. Of course, women are also brought up in the same society, they also internalise the rules, is that surprising?
If you say "YES but women are actually privileged because they expect us to take them to a restaurant and pay for everything, to treat them like princesses and buy them expensive jewelry, otherwise we're not real men"...
Well, you're not DEBUNKING my discourse, you are STRENGTHENING it!

I am a feminist, I earn my own money, and I do NOT expect a man to prove his attachment to me by buying me lots of presents. I do not mind if my boyfriend makes less money than I do, that does not make him less of a man. I do not expect him to pay for everything if we go on holiday and stay at an expensive hotel, or go to an expensive restaurant.

This is why it's absolutely wrong to say "feminists want to have their cake and eat it." If I want to destroy patriarchy, this means I also agree to renounce all these advantages that it can give me. And believe me or not, I happily do it.
Women who claim to be feminists but get offended if you don't do all these things a "real man" is supposed to do (paying for everything, protecting her...) are absolutely NOT feminists.
They have simply misunderstood feminism and are trying to get the advantages of both systems, which cannot work.

As twoflowers rightly pointed out, you did no such thing as "back up your points". You only threw us two articles, which are apparently not very serious.

Also, I don't know where you got that "bouncing between two hemispheres" thing, because I've been trying to find a proper source for this, and I can find none. All I can find is messages on forums or websites with anti-feminist ideas.

It's futile to discuss with you like any feminists. See this is your logic:

> Women are oppressed and men are priveleged due to patriarchy
> I bring up many areas of life in which this is clearly not true
> Then you say that is also due to the patriarchy

This is extremely logically fallacious and is called circular reasoning.

Let me show you how I can apply this to YOUR reasoning :
- Patriarchy and privilege are myths created by feminists to hate on men
- I bring up many examples to explain that privilege does exist but that feminists don't hate on men
- You answer that of course I'd say that only because I'm a feminist and therefore my brain doesn't work properly.

This is also extremely logically fallacious and it is called behing uncapable of listening to someone. It's also called misogyny of course but I'm saying that because I'm a feminist.

Comparing warnings to a girl about being r*ped with warnings to a person not to walk around with all their wealth exposed is just horrible, I can't imagine how you cannot see this.
I am sorry if my body is attractive to some men, I don't even take that as a compliment because contrary to a popular perception, your chances of being cat-called r*ped are not necessarily linked to attractiveness. But I cannot really walk to the shop without taking my body with me, right? What "precautions" am I supposed to take? Never go out without a man?
Or else you are implying victims of r*pe are all provocatively dressed, which is worse, and untrue.
Why scare us and make us feel guilty for the way we dress, if in the end it bears almost no relation to our real chances of being r*aped? That's the problem.

You are contradicting yourself when you claim that female thinking only wants safety and not freedom, and at the same time you say I should not complain that people are trying to prevent me from going for a run on my own, by scaring me with stories about r*ape. They care about me? Right. So they should realize that by doing this, they are being extremely controlling, and they are basically asking me to surrender one important freedom. I cannot be constantly thinking about the danger, or else I just stay at home and do nothing. If going for a run in a park in daylight qualifies as deliberatly putting yourself in danger, then I don't know what I can do anymore.

And NO, the amount of prevention done to prevent mugging is just not the same at all as the type of explicit or implicit warnings given to women about r*ape. And claiming that it's not true that plenty of people blame the victims when a r*ape happens just shows you've never spent time looking at the comments on any article about this. A woman was r*aped and killed while she was running in a park on a Saturday evening. And about half the comments were primarily about asking what on earth she was thinking to be doing that. That's just disgusting.

Moreover, the discourse about r*ape prevention mostly ignores the fact that the vast majority of r*apes do NOT happen in the streets, but are committed by people who are close to you. So scaring us and telling us we should dress with loose clothes to hide our bodies if we don't want to get r*aped is not going to help that much, in the end. It's only going to make the victim question her own responsibility if she is unlucky enough to actually be attacked.
This is specific to r*ape. My wallet was stolen once, well, I did wonder if I had been stupid to leave all my papers in there, but I was not made to feel guilty about it (and I did not). My brother was once hit by a guy in the street for no reason, well that was unpleasant and probably even a bit traumatic, but no one ever told him he had brought it upon himself.

Why, you ask, is this a matter of gender education?
Well, I'll send you back to the situations I've described to you about how men do not listen to women when they say "No". You dismissed them very easily.
Basically, you just told me I should be grateful for "getting attention" instead of complaining. And you even implied that I was actually trying to attract this attention (ludicrous point but not unexpected).

You great manly logic did not seem to show you that there is an essential difference between "getting attention" and being harassed.Like everyone else, I occasionally do enjoy getting attention. That is to say, when a man comes up to me, expresses interest, and then I either continue chatting or I say "thank you I'm flattered but sorry I'm not interested." And the man says "OK too bad, no worries, have a nice day."
THIS is getting attention. This is definitely a nice experience and nothing to complain about.

But sadly, in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't happen like that. In the vast majority of cases, when I start trying to show the guy that I'm not interested, he first ignores the implicit signals (such as me not trying to go ahead with the conversation). Then I try to tell him clearly that I'm not interested and I'd like to stop this conversation, and that's where it gets tricky. I only ever get two reaction : insults ("Slut!" / "Bitch, you're ugly anyway"!), or just, complete disregard for what I'm saying. And he can follow me around for 20 minutes even though I've said "no" like 10 times.
THIS is NOT "attention", this is harrassment. The line is not difficult to draw : she says no? Leave her alone.

The culture you seem to promote, which regards women as irrational beings with emotional brains, also tells us that women's words do not mean much. And it teaches men to give little importance to the consent or lack of consent of women. "A woman says no but she means yes." "A woman says no but in fact she just wants to entice you more." "A woman changes her mind constantly" etc.
So what do I say when I REALLY want to say no?...
This is what's behind many r*apes, and this is why it is a specific problem linked to gender education.

I'd say it's because you're a feminist. No masculine man will or ever will like a feminist, no matter how she looks.

It's a good thing, then, than I'm not rating the attractiveness of a man according to his level of traditional "masculinity". I tend to go for guys who are attractive and clever, and who respect me for what I am.

A man who won't date me because I'm a feminist is not a man I'd like to date, anyway.

And FYI... No. I was not a feminist at the time when I was getting no attention from men. I was just rather ugly. That was enough. Men and women are the same, they give you attention because they find you physically and/or socially attractive. I was not very attractive, simple as that. Partly my fault (I did not know how to dress and did not care), and partly nature's fault for giving me plenty of horrible acne... whatever.
"Nice guys" who whine that pretty girls won't date them usually don't go after the , shy, ugly, nerdy girl in the corner either, even if she's very "nice".

And it's actually the opposite, I do get A LOT more attention now that I am better looking and also a feminist. Because now, not only am I prettier than before, but I am also more confident, and this attracts people.

And yes someone who goes to a bar which is quite clearly an environment made for primarily meeting new people, particularly the opposite sex, and then gets annoyed for men hitting on her is either just clueless or just there for the attention. This isn't being a slut, this is being an attention whore.

It's like you dancing at a club and a guy starts dancing with you and you get annoyed.

That's just YOUR definition of a bar or a club. I go to bars and clubs also just to hang out with my friends (actually, no I don't go to clubs anymore precisely because of the harrassment). It is just wrong to assume that I go there only to attract men. And even if I did, I'm just like everyone else, I want to attract the ones that attract ME, and I have a right to turn down the others, right?

And once again, the problem is NOT getting attention. The problem is that the guys in question WOULD NOT LEAVE US ALONE even after we'd told them we wanted to be left alone (in one instance, even the bartender had told him to leave us alone - maybe she didn't know what bars were for, either? ).

I wouldn't say that if this were "one" instance. This is what happens most often. And it is not how all men behave, but it shows the influence of certain social norms. Many men still think that a woman saying "no" is not a clear signal that you should stop. I experience it all the time and so do many of my friends.

Yet not one piece of activism was seen by a feminist about male stereotypes that day.

Well, what do you care, you would dismiss it as feminist bullshit anyway.
FYI one of my feminist friend (who is happily married BTW) has written her entire PhD thesis on stereotypes of masculinity imposed on men.
But she probably is doing that just so that she can indulge in her favourite occupation: hating on men all day long, right?

The latest pieces about men I remember sharing were an article about men not being allowed to have long hair at work (while of course women are allowed to), and one about fathers who expressed annoyance at the fact that advertising constantly depicted men as being unable to take care of their children.
But anti-feminists would say that by doing this, I'm promoting the "feminisation" of men. While also complaining that society is unfair because it gives the children to the women systematically when there's a divorce (logic... )

You claim you are in favour of freedom of speech, but at the same time you question my ability to think because I don't agree with you. So basically, I'm allowed to talk, but only to be told that nothing I say makes sense, because I am somehow fundamentally unable to think, on the grounds that I don't agree with you?

I'm sorry Mr mathematician, but I don't really see your logic at work here.

OK I don't know what to say to such obvious bullshit. If there's one thing I'm pretty confident about, it's in my intellectual abilities.

Of course I forgot that although you think science and math are absolute, you think the educational system is BS and shows nothing of people's ability to think and reason. So I can hardly "prove" to you that my brain is at least as functional as yours.

Yeah sure go ahead don't be feminine no one cares but don't complain when real men don't give you interest either, and yes you will be naturally attracted to masculine men, not feminised men.

Well, I don't know what to say to your "You are not feminine" argument, except, maybe, FU... Seriously, does that deserve any other answer?
And , no, I am not attracted to guys that you would consider "masculine" more,than to those that you would brand "feminised" (of course I'm using your labels here, I don't label men, they are free to be what they like, withtout being branded "feminine" or "manginas").

And just as an aside; why do women usually go for 'jerks'? Because they're hyper masculine. The amount of proper masculine men is quickly dwindling in society and all you have are the extremely hyper masculine men left [ie the thugs and jerks as you call them] and your average doormat pro feminist man who berates his own gender for the supposed ''oppression'' of women and this is why women are attracted to them. Of course they're not a good representation of masculinity because they're too masculine, but this is the reason why they prefer them to you average feminist, pro equality man in Western society.

I don't even want to get started on this. All I can tell you is: this is NOT TRUE. If the women you want always go for the jerks, it's because you probably don't hit on the right women (BTW, did you pick them because they were "nice"? I doubt it)

No woman who is right in her mind will prefer a jerk who treats her like shit over a genuinely nice guy.
Self-proclaimed "nice guys" like to blame their failure with women on the women themselves, it's easier than to try and think about what they may be doing wrong.

Most of the time, they simply don't make their intentions towards the woman clear, or they persist in going after a woman who's clearly not interested, instead of moving on. Or else they lack self-confidence, which is sadly more common in decent people than in hyper-masculine thugs.
But the "good girls" out there don't fall for the thugs. So go and get the "good girls", instead of pining for the hottie who falls for the local drug dealer.

For instance, I am a perfectly decent person and a very "nice girl". I will never ridicule you for not being "manly" enough. I will not make a scene because you don't give me your credit card to buy clothes. I never fall for jerks. I fall for men who have morals, who are clever, who are nice, and who respect me.
But of course, you would not date me, because I'm a fucking feminist!
So go on and complain that the girls you like are dating jerks instead of nice guys like you.

So don't you get the point which nature is telling? Men and women aren't equal. Men and women can never be equal. Both have such different physical and mental structures, they can never be equal.

THIS is where you are wrong. This is the famous NATURE vs NURTURE/CULTURE debate.

I am NOT trying to claim that men are women are equal in every single way. I am trying to say that a HUGE part of the inequality is due to SOCIAL factors.
I believe that the social standards of behaviour that we impose on people, by deciding that such and such behaviour are not for "real men" or for "real women", are ultimately not good for us.
They limit people, they create distress in many individuals who do not correspond to these stereotypes. Not to mention the suicide rate among gay people.

And the worst thing about it is : people like you try to make us believe that ALL OF THIS is just due to nature. It's not. Nature does give us some predispositions, I'm not going to deny this. We have different bodies, different hormones, they affect our psyche, our mood, our abilities, of course.
I'm going to please you here : almight Science has shown that there are differences, and I am pretty convinced of that.

BUT.
Science has also shown time and time again that even though we DO have different natural abilities:
- These differences are still not very significant (two individuals of the same sex will differ as much as two individuals of a different sex).
In other words, individuals are widely different and the differences between individuals are far more important than those between the two genders.

- These differences can be easily erased by nurture/culture, in other words : in the fight between nature and culture, CULTURE OWNS NATURE'S ASS.
The "natural" differences between men and women in terms of abilities are very easily erased by education. The real reason why important differences persist is culture, not nature.

Are Women Instinctively More Nurturing?
(This is a study of two different cultures, one where men have the economic power, and another where women do, and the consequences of the perception of both sexes and their actual ability to do things)http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...more-nurturing

Even this one article which is pretty essentialist, agrees that the differences are actually pretty minimal and are only a "grain of truth" to justify cultural stereotypes:
Are There Differences Between the Brains of Males and Females?http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/m...ro-homens.html

And now, I'm going to leave you, because my little emotional female's brains need to be put to use to prepare lots of university classes. And I'm going to try and do it in spite of my lack of logic and reasoning abilities, so it might take me the whole day

Male Gender has a very high peak level but makes a lot of unforced errors.

Female Gender makes few errors, but does not hit with much power.

The Female Gender used to bend over for the Male Gender, but as the organization called "Feminism" slowed down the courts and the balls,

Just my views.

Now, both Sophitia and GOAT = Fed make some good points. You always have to see things through a two-sided mirror.

I (as a man), think it is wrong to dismiss sexual assault and raype as small crimes. Men and women have different attitudes towards sex, and we have to respect that women do not want their bodies violated or treated as an object, even though many men would love to be sexually assaulted by a hot woman.

However, I think we can all agree, that placing rayp as high a crime as murder is ridiculous.

GOAT = Fed makes some good points that women are "allowed" to act like men, but there is a stigma against men acting like women. Women can wear guy clothes, but men can't wear girl clothes. Women can do wrestling or American football, but men will not do field hockey or softball, for example.

Men are expected to ask women out on date, or propose to them. They are expected to hold the door open, pay restaurant money, etc. They cannot cry, but women can. If women slap men, they are applauded a fierce, if it happens the other way around, the man is a douche.

Why are the feminists not addressing these "discriminations"? Do only women-related discriminations merit importance.

An argument against that is most discrimination of men, is in fact, caused by other men. Men cannot do all these things because if they do so, other men will call them unmanly. There may be even more men wanting the higher standards for the male gender, than there are those complaining of discrimination.

All over the world, men are killed in higher numbers than women. Certainly true. But a huge majority of their killers, are other men.

Of course, if you look at total around the world, there is far more discrimination from men-to-women than the other way around. So why are feminists focusing their efforts on issues such as "Women in comic books are too sexy"?

I'm tired of hearing women wearing extremely revealing outfits complain that men were looking at them inappropriately. Too much hypocritical.

If I want to destroy patriarchy, this means I also agree to renounce all these advantages that it can give me. And believe me or not, I happily do it.

Hi Sophitia36

Do you believe that feminist ideals are universally desirable in every culture around the world, especially as it applies to family structure, and the role that men (fathers/patriarchs) play within those families?

Most will agree that excluding women from the workforce, denying them suffrage, or persecuting them in society for moral offences like in some middle eastern countries is not right.

Is the private family unit an important battleground for the two sides?